Subject: A Mormon Apologist Lies About Temple Changes
Date: Feb 23 17:44 2004
Author: Deconstructor

Once again, in testimony-bearing fashion, TBM Eavesdropper [Mormon Apologist also known as TBME] has thrown out assertions that are complete lies:

TBME said:

"The endowment has never changed. It is the same one we had 15 years ago, 50 years ago and 150 years ago. Granted, there have been changes in the way the endowment is presented but the endowment is the same. For example, at different points during the endowment, effort is made to impress upon our minds the truths we are being taught. Changes have been made over the years in the way these principles are communicated, but nothing has changed regarding the reason we go to the temple and what is accomplished there."

The only truth here is that the reason Mormons go to the temple hasn't changed. However, the rest of TBME's statement is a blatant lie.

Mormon Priests who bless the sacrament every Sunday know what it means to make a change in an ordinance. One word change in the sacrament blessing from what it says in the Book of Mormon and the D&C and the Priest has to re-do the ordinance.

The same goes for the baptism ordinance. One change in the wording and it has to be redone. Nor have the words of the ordinance changed in the last 150 years.

According to Joseph Smith, the temple ordinances and covenants are just as unalterable as the other saving ordinances of the gospel.

The "presentation" part of the endowment includes clothing, music, actors, lighting, songs and story of creation.

However, the endowment also contains ordinances and covenants. These include the washing and anointing ordinance, covenants and oaths made during the endowment and the sealing ordinance.

TBME lies when he says that these ordinances have never changed in the last 150 years. The covenants I made are not the same as the ones my wife made in the 1980s. My sealing ordinance was not the same my parents received in the 1960s. And my grandparents received even more altered ordinances and covenants.

In fact, my great-great-grandfather McConkie not only had a very different sealing ordinance (to his three wives), but he also had to make a covenant of vengeance against the American Government in order to obtain his endowment. So did my great-grandfather. In 1906 this became the subject of a United States Senate Investigation, and was therefore clearly documented! See:

http://www.lds-mormon.com/veilworker/oathvenge.shtml

Many of the other changes in temple covenants and ordinances are documented, especially the latest round from 1990. See:

http://helpingmormons.org/compare.htm

These changes in covenants and ordinances are akin to changing the sacrament prayer or baptism ordinance. The church has done a good job keeping those ordinances the same but have repeatedly altered the ordinances and covenants in the temple, which was expressly forbidden by the Lord and Joseph Smith. From August 2001 Ensign (page 22), in big bold print above a large colorful portrait of Joseph Smith:

"The Prophet Joseph Smith taught, "Ordinances instituted in the heavens before the foundation of the world, in the priesthood, for the salvation of men, are not to be altered or changed.""

Mormon Fundamentalists correctly use the changes in the temple ordinances and covenants to demonstrate that the main Mormon Church is in a state of apostasy.

TBM Eavesdropper only demonstrates his ignorance by declaring here that the temple ordinances and covenants have never changed.

I ask TBME again, why do you post such ridiculous and indefensible claims here on a Recovery from Mormonism board? I hope this time you will answer.


Subject: I used to HAVE to slash my neck to act out how I would kill myself pre 1990
Date: Feb 23 17:57
Author: AFNO

Now that is gone. I ask: How are the faithful supposed to know how to kill themselves since this has been removed. I am SURE there are right ways and wrong ways to kill yourself to protect the secret handshakes and passwords, but now the poor elite membership do not know which methods to use.

This is a definite change in the ordinance. Slashing your throat using your right hand and disemboweling yourself with your other hand cupped to catch your flailing guts are the APPROVED methods given BY GOD to Joseph Smith, right?

How can TBME even say that they haven't been changed?

Oooh, and what about the VENGEANCE promises those early members had to take, you know the ones that drove the Mountain Meadow Massacre murders? I don't believe I had to swear vengeance when I went through in 1984.


Subject: I used to vow to slash my throat and disembowel myself.
Date: Feb 23 18:11
Author: activejackmormon

I guess that wasn't a 90's sort of endowment.

TBME has this bad habit of throwing out the party line as if it was all true without having any backing for it with the facts. To what extent TBME is a liar or just hopelessly ignorant, I don't know.

I personally feel sorry for him. He really wants to believe and thinks that if he states things authoritatively enough, he might believe his own statements.

TBME, a little advice.

Faith equals a belief in things unseen.

Denial is a belief in things that contradict the facts.

You are in so much denial, that this place is not a healthy place for you. Either accept the truth or withhold it from yourself. If you truly want to remain a TBM, this place will ruin you. There isn't enough truth in the church to withstand honest scrutiny. Your engagement here suggests you hope that it does. You are headed for either enlightenment or a serious emotional train-wreck.

Subject: And to think I used to DO this crap!
Date: Feb 23 18:21
Author: Empowered

GAWD, it is so weird...I NEVER felt comfortable with it, and to see it now...in print...turns my stomach.

And Mormons think Satanism is strange?????!!!! Doesn't look too different from my vantage point!

Subject: Interesting to see how the church buckled to feminism.
Date: Feb 23 18:26
Author: Stray Mutt

They fought the Equal Rights Amendment, they shamed women for working outside the home, and all that, but in 1990 they went through the endowment and made women-friendly changes. Obviously, some of those happily submissive LDS sisters had been complaining.

In all the places where it once said only "Adam" it now says "Adam and Eve" and otherwise inserts the plural where once it was all singular. How nice.

Then they cut the parts that blamed Eve for the fall and cursed her.

Then they changed the law of obedience for women so they obey the law of the Lord instead of the law of their husbands. Rather than obey their husbands, they now must only hearken unto them.

Hey, you've come a long way, Baby!

Subject: The changes re women are not as extensive as you might think.
Date: Feb 23 22:16
Author: Ms. Hyde

My husband pointed some of this out to me (some I figured out myself), and when he did I realized I'd been had.

It is true that women now promise to obey "the law of the Lord," and "hearken" unto their husbands. But here is the kicker: guess who the "Lord" is? It's their husband!

Find the ceremony online and read it, and you will see that God and Jesus (wearing their dresses, of course), say that they "make you, Adam, Lord" over all the earth, or something like that. Previously, they made Adam lord over all the earth, but it was before Eve was around, so it wasn't too obvious to me. But after the changes, Eve is standing right there, and God and Jesus go out of their way to EXCLUDE her from the definition of "Lord" over all the earth.

In addition, the ONLY person they define as "Lord" prior to the woman's promise of obedience is ADAM. The "Lord" is not God. It is Adam. So when women covenant to obey "the law of the Lord," it is the law of THEIR Lord, their husbands.

Consider how the vow of obedience is taken. The man says something like "I covenant and promis to obey your law, Elohim." He makes his "covenant" directly with God. The woman, by contrast, makes her "covenant," not with God, but with Adam. She promises Adam that she will obey the law of the Lord, and will hearken unto his (Adam's) counsel.

I consider this a very sneaky, duplicitous change that appears on the surface to upgrade women's status, but in actual fact, keeps them in the same subservient position they have always occupied in Mormonism.

Also notice that after the Fall, God never again addresses Eve. God only talks to men.

The Mormon church is one of the world's most thoroughgoing patriarchies, and its patriarchs aren't going to give an inch to women.

It is probably true that TBM women were complaining about the temple ceremony, and that the temple survey they did before the changes turned up those complaints. But as they nearly always do, they only appeared to make a concession. Appearances are everything in the Mormon church.

Subject: Ah-ha!
Date: Feb 24 08:09
Author: Stray Mutt

Yes, reading back over it I see that while the women covenant to obey the Lord the men covenant to obey God. Yet anyone sufficiently immersed in LDS culture to be temple-worthy would assume "the Lord" is Jesus or God. It's as if the brethren changed the language but didn't change the meaning. I think it's obvious, though, they were trying to smooth out some of the blatantly sexist parts of the ceremony. Someone must have been complaining. I suspect it was convert women who had lived in a more enlightened culture. "Submissive obedience to our husbands? What sort of stone age mentality is that?" I suspect converts were also the reason the character of the minister was axed. It really was offensive to those who came from other religions, and incredibly arrogant of Mormons.

Subject: Where could a TBM get this clarified?
Date: Feb 24 09:53
Author: Baura

Where could a TBM ask for clarification on who "Lord" refers to? Since you can't ask outside of the temple and you can't interrupt the ceremony where do you ask to find out exactly what covenants you are agreeing to?

Note that the words "husband" and "Lord" are used in the same oath as if they were different people. If the Morg intends "Lord" to mean "husband" that's really sneaky.

I know the Morg is above the law but....

In Contract Law if there is any ambiguity in the contract then the party that didn't create the ambiguity (i.e. didn't write that part of the contract) is free to resolve the ambiguity as they wish. This means that if "Lord" is an ambiguous word that could mean "God" or "husband" then the woman would be free to define it as "God" rather than "husband" if she wished.

Subject: Lies?
Date: Feb 23 19:01
Author: tbm eavesdropper [Mormon apologist]

No lies from me.

You have confused the ceremony with the endowment. The endowment, which is the ordinance necessary to return to God is the same as it has always been. The temple ceremony, which is the process of teaching the endowment has gone through many changes and may go through more in the future.

Baptism is an ordinance, ordaining to the priesthood is an ordinance, confirmation is an ordinance, etc. A ceremony is the ritual or rite that includes the ordinance. But a ceremony is often far more than the ordinance. A wedding ceremony, for example, is a lot more than the 'I do,' and yet, most of the ceremony is relatively unimportant to the actual ordinance itself. In the case of a wedding, much of the ceremony is largely irrelevant to the ordinance itself-the ring ceremony, the giving away of the bride, taking vows, etc.

The same is true with the temple. The pre 1990 temple ceremony included parts that we do not have today. These were largly symbolic in nature and were meant as a way to impress upon our minds the sacredness of not revealing certain aspects of the temple. It was not to be taken literally as part of the endowment.

I brought this up because too many anti-mormons dwelt on a change in the ceremony to prove the church is changing. It is not, or at least the changes are only relative. The ceremony is a relative truth and can change from time to time when needed. The endowment is an absolute truth and will not change.

Subject: What part of Temple worship is the ordinance?!
Date: Feb 23 19:27
Author: Deconstructor

You have confused the ceremony with the endowment. The endowment, which is the ordinance necessary to return to God is the same as it has always been. The temple ceremony, which is the process of teaching the endowment has gone through many changes and may go through more in the future.

No confusion here. Exactly what do you think is the ordinances in the temple? Please explain.

The "teaching" part of the endowment is not an issue here. I understand it's not the ordinance or covenant part of Mormon temple worship. I could justifably slam the doctrinal changes in the temple endowment, but that's not part of this discussion. I am specifically referring to changes in temple ordinances.

Please define exactly what you think the ordinances are that have "never changed."

Baptism is an ordinance, ordaining to the priesthood is an ordinance, confirmation is an ordinance, etc. A ceremony is the ritual or rite that includes the ordinance. But a ceremony is often far more than the ordinance. A wedding ceremony, for example, is a lot more than the 'I do,' and yet, most of the ceremony is relatively unimportant to the actual ordinance itself. In the case of a wedding, much of the ceremony is largely irrelevant to the ordinance itself-the ring ceremony, the giving away of the bride, taking vows, etc.

Wait a minute. We're not talking about a wedding ceremony. We're talking about the temple sealing ORDINANCE. We're talking about the covenants made during that ORDINANCE and the words of the ORDINANCE officiator. They have changed repeatedly over the last 150 years!

The pre 1990 temple ceremony included parts that we do not have today. These were largly symbolic in nature and were meant as a way to impress upon our minds the sacredness of not revealing certain aspects of the temple. It was not to be taken literally as part of the endowment.

Again, we're not talking about the endowment "teaching" parts that even you admit have been altered. Yes, the temple endowment teachings have been altered and the presentation of the endowment changed. But that's not the ordinance parts at issue here.

I brought this up because too many anti-mormons dwelt on a change in the ceremony to prove the church is changing. It is not, or at least the changes are only relative. The ceremony is a relative truth and can change from time to time when needed. The endowment is an absolute truth and will not change.

Again, you need to clarify your definition of endowment vs. ceremony. What part of temple worship is never-changeable ordinance as outlined by the Prophet Joseph Smith?

Subject: I guess he means the secret handshakes haven't changed
Date: Feb 23 22:27
Author: Ms. Hyde

And we all know, of course, that you can't get into heaven without a secret handshake.

He conveniently forgets that the signs have changed because the execution of the penalties have changed. Making the execution of the penalties used to be part of the "signs".

I think it is hard to argue that the signs are not part of the endowment. After all, before the true order of prayer, they make all the signs. Seems like part of the ordinance to me.

I guess all that really matters to TBME is the secret handshakes.

A question for TBME, one that never made any sense to me even when I believed. If you know the secret handshakes, can you get into heaven even if you're not righteous? And if it's all conditioned on "righteousness," why the heck do you need a secret handshake??

Subject: Funny you should use the term "ordinance"...
Date: Feb 23 19:32
Author: anon

...because you're saying the "ordinance" has never changed. Well then...what is an "ordinance"?

or·di·nance ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ôrdn-ns)
n.
1) An authoritative command or order.
2) A custom or practice established by long usage.
3) A Christian rite, especially the Eucharist.
4) A statute or regulation, especially one enacted by a city government.

So. That doesn't really help you at all. You're essentially saying that the Command or Order hasn't changed. My good friend, I can guarantee you that the Command or Order or Custom or Practice or Rite of the Temple has indeed changed. The verbiage has changed. The pantomimes have changed. The dress has changed. The oaths have changed. If you disagree with my assertion, please be kind enough to point of with exactitude where I'm wrong.

Subject: ceremony vs. ordinance
Date: Feb 23 19:34
Author: Mach 1

TBME, perhaps you could enlighten us all by telling us which parts of the endowment constitute ceremony and which parts are ordinances.

At the very least, going through the veil, the climax of the endowment is an ordinance right? It includes the laying on of hands in one way or another. Pre 1990 included "the five points of fellowship through the veil". Right hand on left shoulder, etc etc. It makes me sick. So was this change just part of the ceremony?

This small point started me on my road to self-examination. I was reading a book on cults (no the LDS church was not mentioned), and there was a section on masonry. They mentioned the "five points of fellowship". I said what??? Searched more, and here I am.

THE TRUTH HAS MADE ME FREE!

Subject: Re: Lies?
Date: Feb 23 19:41
Author: un_freakin_believable

TBME, this is how BY defined the endowment:

“Your endowment is, to receive all those ordinances in the house of the Lord, which are necessary for you, after you have departed this life, to enable you to walk back to the presence of the Father, passing the angels who stand as sentinels, being enabled to give them the key words, the signs and tokens, pertaining to the holy Priesthood, and gain your eternal exaltation" (Discourses of Brigham Young, sel. John A. Widtsoe [1954], 416).

Have the ordinances changed? Have the key words changed? Have the signs changed? Have the tokens changed?

If any of these things has changed, the endowment has changed.

Un

freakin'

believable


Subject: Re: Lies?
Date: Feb 24 10:02
Author: Baura

tbm eavesdropper wrote:

> The same is true with the temple. The pre 1990 temple ceremony included parts that we do not have today. These were largely symbolic in nature and were meant as a way to impress upon our minds the sacredness of not revealing certain aspects of the temple. It was not to be taken literally as part of the endowment.

References please? Do you know of an official pronouncement that these were not to be taken literally? i.e. Is there any official pronouncement that the notion that you were to not reveal various signs, tokens and penalties even under threat of death is not literally true?

Subject: My post 1990 endowed TBM brother...
Date: Feb 23 19:06
Author: Mook

was incredulous and accused me of being overly gullible.

He was giving me an obligatory Christian rebuking and a stern warning of God's impending wrath if I didn't change my ways when I asked him what's up with Christians and their obsession with revenge and violence. I pointed out the whole throat slashing disemboweling ritual that was required by his loving God while he rolled his eyes and nodded his head back and forth saying I believe anything anti-mormons tell me.

I also brought up the now-famous God once was a man couplet, and he'd never heard of it, and, as a returned missionary, was absolutely sure they never taught it.
I bet him $20 he was mistaken and he was so confident he raised it to $100 (which I'm still waiting on). Just being able to gloat and lord it over him is worth so much more. Ah, revenge is sweet, (Hey, maybe I'm Christian after all!)



Subject: Okay, I'll give it a try
Date: Feb 24 02:55
Author: Reinventing Grace

TBME wrote:

"I'm sure the Bretheren looked at some parts of the ceremony and decided it was in the best interest to take some things out... But again, these changes were to the ceremony, or presentation and do not affect the endowment."

"The ordinances of the endowment embody certain obligations on the part of the individual, such as covenant and promise to observe the law of strict virtue and chastity, to be charitable, benevolent, tolerant and pure; to devote both talent and material needs to the building up of the Kingdom of God. With the taking of each covenant and the assuming of each obligation a promised blessing is pronounced, contingent on faithful observance of the conditions."

So, the endowment itself, you figure, are the covenants made between the person and the Lord, to keep the law of chastity, to be tolerant, etc. Fair enough. So, using that, I'll predict your answers to my survey:

1. They let you wear clothes on during the initiatory ceremony, and didn't use real oil.
No prob
2. They cut out some of the repeated verbage to shave it down to an hour and 15 minutes.
No prob
3. They did a little remodeling and let nonmembers into the sealing rooms.
No prob
4. They took out the remark Satan makes about the other churches being evil.
No prob
5. They encouraged people to linger in the Celestial Room for as long as they cared to.
No prob
6. They took out the handshakes (figuring folks are good to their word).
Probably no prob. No change to the covenant, just the manifestation to the covenant (but how is everyone going to get past the sentinals?--ed.)
7. They changed the bit about women being obedient to their husbands as husbands were obedient to God and just left it at women should be obedient to God. Y N
No prob
8. Changed the wording of the women's initiatory ceremony so it didn't suggest the temple worker had personal priesthood authority. Y N
No prob
9. Started having special meetings for large groups of worthy members in the temple assembly rooms (those that have them) a couple times each year. Y N
10. Remonve the veil from women's temple wardrobe. Y N
No prob
11. Removed all special temple clothing and all the associated symbolism--no more robes, veils, caps. But left the shoes and the apron. Y N
No prob
12. Removed all special clothing--you go through in street clothes. No apron, no slippers. Y N
No prob
13. Let Eve flash a nipple in the movie. Y N
Hmmm. Would this violate the law of chastity?
14. Let Adam flash a buttock in the movie. Y N
Ditto
15. Took the "all seeing eye" off the ceiling of the garden room in the SLC temple. Y N
No prob
16. Installed an "all seeing eye" in the endowment rooms of all temples. Y N
No prob
17. Improved on the 8-point Dolby sound system and upgraded to virtual reality, with 3-d goggles, moving seats, and speedy rides from heaven to earth with Peter James and John. And charging elephants in the garden room. And close-ups of vultures and skulls in the world room. Y
No prob
18. Reinstituted suicide rituals, but instead of ripping out guts they did a mock handgun drawn to head and fired, self-administered lethal injection, and OD on sleeping pills. Y N
No prob
19. Changed the music to Jazz. Y N
No prob
20. Throw in a few pointers on how men can be good men and women can be good women, in terms of useful specifics. Maybe a different excerpt from "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus" each time. Y N
No prob

Wow. Okay, so, based on your definition of "changes to the endowment" the COB has a lot of latitude for changes to the ceremony. Aside from flashing nipples and buttocks, they're in business. They can even drop the handshakes.

Thanks,

RG

Subject: What are the five points of fellowship????
Date: Feb 23 23:47
Author: schweizmissionzurich

I guess they don't count


Subject: clarification
Date: Feb 24 01:42
Author: tbm eavesdropper

Again, the changes everyone is referring to have to do with the ceremony or presentation in the temple. I used the wedding analogy to show that much of a wedding ceremony is not the actual wedding itself. The father giving away the bride, or the exchange of rings, best man or brides maids do not affect the outcome of a wedding. If you decided not to have a best man, you would still be married.

When I was baptized in 1966 at the age of 8, we met at the Stake Center, had a program and several baptisms. I was confirmed the next day in Sacrament Meeting. Well, this procedure has changed over the years. Last year when I baptized my youngest daughter, we confirmed her 15 minutes later. So this is done differently today than it was in the past. Neither way is right or wrong, just different procedures and changes made to meet different needs.

So the temple ceremony is different now than it was in 1977 when I first went through. I'm sure the Bretheren looked at some parts of the ceremony and decided it was in the best interest to take some things out. There were possibly some areas members may have not felt totally comfortable with. So they were done away with. But again, these changes were to the ceremony, or presentation and do not affect the endowment. Just like in the wedding and baptism examples above, the changes do not affect the bottom line. The endowment is still the same.

The ordinances of the endowment embody certain obligations on the part of the individual, such as covenant and promise to observe the law of strict virtue and chastity, to be charitable, benevolent, tolerant and pure; to devote both talent and material needs to the building up of the Kingdom of God. With the taking of each covenant and the assuming of each obligation a promised blessing is pronounced, contingent on faithful observance of the conditions. All this was the endowment when i first went through and still is today. These do not change.

Someone mentioned in the 1800's part of the endowment was an oath to avenge those responsible for the martyrdom of the Prophet. Obviously, some things are not applicable today because the people responsible for the death of Joseph are no longer living.

So, in summary, when I say no changes have been made over the years, I am referring to what covenants we make in the temple, the reason we have temples and the end result of going to the temple. I am not referring to the way the endowment is presented because that has undergone many changes.

Subject: OMG! TBME is the same age as me!
Date: Feb 24 01:46
Author: Empowered

TBME...it isn't too late to see the light!!!

Oh...wait...you already HAVE! You're at this board! Does your bishop know?

Subject: for a picture of TBME, just look up "spin" in the dictionary.....(N/T)
Subject: Law of Vengeance was Generational
Date: Feb 24 07:51
Author: Quevedo

"those who killed JS aren't living any longer" or something to that effect.

You have no understanding of the "Law of Vengeance." The Law, as understood by those who swore it, was to seek vengeance unto the subsequent generations of those who killed Joe.

Subject: Re: clarification
Date: Feb 24 08:17
Author: Randy J.

TBME wrote:

>The ordinances of the endowment embody certain obligations on the part of the individual, such as covenant and promise to observe the law of strict virtue and chastity, to be charitable, benevolent, tolerant and pure; to devote both talent and material needs to the building up of the Kingdom of God. With the taking of each covenant and the assuming of each obligation a promised blessing is pronounced, contingent on faithful observance of the conditions. All this was the endowment when i first went through and still is today. These do not change.


Since you have defined "the ordinance of the endowment" as the covenants and obligations one takes---and those covenants and obligations have indeed changed over the years---then your assertion that the endowment has not changed is false.

>Someone mentioned in the 1800's part of the endowment was an oath to avenge those responsible for the martyrdom of the Prophet. Obviously, some things are not applicable today because the people responsible for the death of Joseph are no longer living.


You are demonstrating your ignorance of your own religion. The "oath of vengeance" called for retribution against the spillers of the "blood of the prophets"---not just Joseph Smith:

"You and each of you do covenant and promise that you will pray, and never cease to pray, Almighty God to avenge the blood of the prophets upon this nation, and that you
will teach the same to your children and your children's children unto the third and fourth generations"
Sources: "Proceedings Before the Committee on Privileges and Elections of the United States Senate in the Matter of the Protests Against the Right of Hon. Reed Smoot, A Senator from the State of Utah, to Hold his Seat. 4 Vols.
Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1907, 4: 6-7; see also 1:741-43, 791-92; 2:77-79), 148-49, 151-53, 160-62, 181-83, 189-90, 759, 762-764, 779; 4:68-69, and 495-97).

The Mormons of 1857 cited the "oath of vengeance" as their "justification" for committing the Mountain Meadows Massacre; they accused members of the Baker/Fancher train of being among the murderers of apostle Parley P. Pratt, who was killed in Arkansas mere weeks before the MMM.

Thus, your response that the "oath of vengeance" was removed because the killers of Joseph Smith are dead is not applicable, and does not alter the fact that the oath was indeed removed.

Another temple covenant which has been removed was the "oath of obedience." At least two accounts of this oath were published in the 19th century.

The first came from a Catherine Lewis, who went through the endowment ceremony in Nauvoo, and her account was published in the 'Warsaw Signal' in 1846:

"We were to hold up the heads of the Church, and obey them in all things, and at all times. Then we held up both hands above the head, and placed our right hand under our left ear, drew it across the throat, the left hand was placed to
the right shoulder, then drawn across the breast, and the right hand suddenly thrust down the right side."

The second account was published in the 'Salt Lake Tribune' on 9/28/1879:

"They then proceeded to give us the first grip of the Aaronic or lesser priesthood, which consists in putting the thumb on the knuckle of the index finger, and clasping the hands round. We were then made to swear 'To obey the laws of the Mormon Church and all they enjoin, in preference to those of the United States.' The penalty for revealing this grip and oath, is that you will have your throat cut from ear to ear, and your tongue torn from your mouth, and
the sign of the penalty is drawing the hand with the thumb pointing towards the throat sharply across and bringing the arm to the level of the square and with the hand upraised to heaven, swearing to abide the same."

Since the "oath of obedience" was an "oath or covenant," and it has been removed, then that qualifies as another change in the endowment, and that refutes your assertion that the endowment has not changed.

TBME, all you are doing here is spin-doctoring and word-parsing. You are not being honest with us or with yourself. Your tactics would be more welcome and appreciated on a TBM-only board.

Subject: TBME is essentially arguing that we here are focusing on style over substance . . .
Date: Feb 24 01:55
Author: steve benson

What TBME fails to grasp is that it is the Mormon god's style to regularly change the substance.

Moism is Morphism--and has been from day one, in the temple and out.

TBME would, of course, call it "continuing revelation."

Those who see it for what it truly is call it continuing capitulation.

Subject: Re: TBME Lies About Temple Changes
Date: Feb 24 02:41
Author: bnaur

That's as logical as his faith... and he has closed his eyes to reason.

I saw the changes, I was there and if he cannot tell the difference between pre 1990 with the death penalties and now, then he will be arguing with Jesus when he returns trying to convince Jesus that Joseph Smith really was a prophet of God. He won't believe Jesus even when the big guy himself tells him.

That's just how TBM's are... they live in a different eyes wide shut world. It isn't true until someone above them tells them it is true because the thinking has already been done for them.

Oh well, I give up on them... there is no hope for their bigoted homophobic souls.


Subject: Re: TBME/Lies & Best defense
Date: Feb 24 06:55
Author: cienfuegos

bravo TBM! You gave the best answer i don't doubt your sincerity!
under the circumstances this practices & doctrines cannot run anywhere anymore.
so, you did best you could.
These guys won't give you credit but i will.
keep trying.

Subject: I'm glad I left before I did the temple thing, it would have been in 1989, the freaky pre1990 stuff.

Subject: Temples, Lies and Changes - here's the proof
Date: Feb 24 09:13
Author: Deconstructor


TBM Eavesdropper continues to lie about temple ordinances and covenants never changing.

TBME: Again,the changes everyone is referring to have to do with the ceremony or presentation in the temple. I used the wedding analogy to show that much of a wedding ceremony is not the actual wedding itself. The father giving away the bride, or the exchange of rings, best man or brides maids do not afffect the outcome of a wedding. If you decided not to have a best man, you would still be married.

Again, you're going after lame duck argument here. I already agreed with you that temple "presentation" changes don't matter. But I do find it funny that you would still be harping on this, especially since your analogy contains a marriage ceremony that does not exist in Mormon Temples.

TBME: When I was baptized in 1966 at the age of 8, we met at the Stake Center, had a program and several baptisms. I was confirmed the next day in Sacrament Meeting. Well, this procedure has changed over the years. Last year when I baptized my youngest daughter, we confirmed her 15 minutes later. So this is done differently today than it was in the past. Neither way is right or wrong, just different procedures and changes made to meet different needs.

Again, your example is totally missing the point. We're not talking about presentation here. We're talking about ORDINANCES AND COVENANTS. Your baptism ordinance from 1966 is exactly the same as the one done today in the church. Your confirmation ordinance from 1966 hasn't changed either. But the same thing can't be said for ordinances and covenants made by temple patrons in 1966!

TBME: Just like in the wedding and baptism examples above, the changes [in the temple] do not affect the bottom line. The endowment is still the same.

Let's cut to the chase. What in your mind are the unchangeable temple ordinances and covenants of the endowment?

TBME:The ordinances of the endowment embody certain obligations on the part of the individual, such as covenant and promise to observe the law of strict virtue and chastity, to be charitable, benevolent, tolerant and pure; to devote both talent and material needs to the building up of the Kingdom of God. With the taking of each covenant and the assuming of each obligation a promised blessing is pronounced, contingent on faithful observance of the conditions. All this was the endowment when i first went through and still is today. These do not change.

There, you've just stated the lie again. These temple covenants have indeed changed repeatedly over the last 150 years!

Again, not a single word of the sacrament blessing can be changed without making it invalid. The same goes for ALL ordinances of the gospel, including baptism, where one word alteration is a change and makes the ordinance wrong. Every priesthood holder in the church knows and understands this. As Joseph Smith declared and church leaders have constantly reaffirmed, saving ordinances and covenants have been revealed from the "foundation of the world" and cannot be changed.

In fact, in the eyes of the Bible God, one of the great signs of apostasy is that a church changes saving ordinances and covenants.

TBME: So, in summary, when I say no changes have been made over the years, I am referring to what covenants we make in the temple, the reason we have temples and the end result of going to the temple. I am not referring to the way the endowment is presented because that has undergone many changes.

Again, you are clearly in error. Not only have temple ordinances changed, but so have the specific covenants you refer to!

Here are just a few examples:

TBM Eavesdropper's temple covenant from 1977:

"I, TBME, think of the first given name, solemnly covenant, before God, angels, and these witnesses that I will never reveal the second Token of the Aaronic Priesthood, with its accompanying name, and sign, and penalty. Rather than do so, I would suffer my life to be taken. That will do."

Deconstructor's temple covenant from 1991:

"I, Deconstructor, think of the first given name, solemnly covenant, before God, angels, and these witnesses that I will never reveal the second Token of the Aaronic Priesthood, with its accompanying name, and sign, and penalty. That will do."

Deconstructor's grandfather's temple covenant from the 1920's:

"We, and each of us, covenant and promise that we will not reveal any of the secrets of this, the Second Token of the Aaronic Priesthood, with its accompanying name, sign, or penalty. Should we do so, we agree to have our breasts cut open and our hearts and vitals torn out from our bodies and given to the birds of the air and the beasts of the field."

You said yourself that the ordinances of the endowment include "certain obligations." Those obligations have clearly changed!

Major changes were also made to three other temple COVENANTS. As part of the ordinance in 1977, TBME also made signs as part of the covenant that I did not have to make in 1991. Prior to the 1960's the words of these covenants were even more different. See: http://helpingmormons.org/early.htm

If the church made these radical of changes in the sacrament or baptism ordinance, they would be in apostasy. The same goes for all "unchangeable" ordinances and covenants of the gospel.

TBME's temple covenant to observe the law of chastity from 1977:

"We are instructed to give unto you the Law of Chastity; which this I will explain. ...that no one of you will have sexual intercourse except with your husband to whom you are legally and lawfully wedded. To the brethren it is that no one of you will have sexual intercourse except with your wife to whom you are legally and lawfully wedded."

Deconstructor's temple covenant to observe the law of chastity from 1991:

"We are instructed to give unto you the law of Chastity; which is that you shall have no sexual relations except with your [spouse] to whom you are legally and lawfully wedded."

Deconstructor's grandfather's temple covenant to observe the law of chastity from the 1920s:

"You and each of you do covenant and promise that you will not have sexual intercourse with any of the opposite sex except your lawful wife or wives who are given you by the holy priesthood. All bow your heads and say yes."

Again, this demonstrates word changes in the covenant way beyond what is acceptable for other ordinances and covenants of the gospel. Just as the church doesn't alter the words of the sacrament blessing or baptism, the Lord has said that the temple covenants and ordinances cannot be changed.

Deconstructor's mother's temple initiatory ordinance from the 1960s:

"Sister Deconstructor's mother, having authority, I wash you preparatory to your receiving your anointings [for and in behalf of _______, who is dead], and whereas you have obeyed the principles of the Gospel of Jesus Christ with a true and honest heart, and have been faithful in keeping your covenants, your sins are forgiven and you are clean every whit. I wash your head that your brain and your intellect may be clear and active in discerning between truth and error, and that you may be filled with the spirit of the Lord, your nose, that you may smell; your lips, that you may never speak guile; your neck, that it may bear up your head properly; your shoulders, that they may bear the burdens that shall be placed thereon; your back, that there may be marrow in the bones and in the spine; your breast, that it may be the receptacle of pure and virtuous principles; your vitals and bowels, that they may be healthy and strong and perform their proper functions; your arms and hands, that they may be strong and wield the sword of justice in defense of truth and virtue; your loins, that you may be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth, that you might have joy and rejoicing in your posterity; your legs and feet, that you might run and not be weary, and walk and not faint."

Deconstructor's great-great-grandmother's temple initiatory ordinance from the 1870s:

Although we don't have the exact words of the ordinance, here's a description that demonstrates radical changes in this "unchangeable" ordinance:

"Another woman was standing beside her with a large wooden spoon and some green olive oil in a cow’s horn. This woman poured the oil out of the spoon into Bathsheba’s hand, who immediately put it on my head, ears, eyes, mouth, and every part of by body, and, as she greased me, she muttered a kind of prayer over each member of my body: My head, that I might have a knowledge of the truths of God; my eyes, that I might see the glories of the kingdom; my mouth, that I might at all times speak the truth; my arms, that they might be strong in defense of the gospel; my bosom, that I might nourish the children whom I might raise by my husband (I was not then married, but expected to be), and another part of my body, that I might raise up a godly seed, that they might be pillars of strength to the upbuilding and strengthening of God’s kingdom upon the earth. And so she got down to my feet, when she hoped they might be swift in the paths of righteousness and truth."
Source: The Daily Tribune: Salt Lake, Sunday Morning, September 28, 1879

There are other changes as well to temple ordinances and covenants, but you get the point.

Mormon temple covenants and ordinances have changed in the last 150 years, which was expressly forbidden by the Prophet Joseph Smith. From August 2001 Ensign (page 22), in big bold print above a large colorful portrait of Joseph Smith:

"The Prophet Joseph Smith taught, "Ordinances instituted in the heavens before the foundation of the world, in the priesthood, for the salvation of men, are not to be altered or changed.""

As Randy Jordan said in his reply (which you have again ignored):

"TBME, all you are doing here is spin-doctoring and word-parsing. You are not being honest with us or with yourself. Your tactics would be more welcome and appreciated on a TBM-only board."

Subject: Korihor is an amateur compared to Deconstructor
Date: Feb 24 12:39
Author: tbm eavesdropper

Korihor had a very convincing way with men and was able to lead many astray. I can't imagine he was as good as Decon.

Anyway, I may be wrong on a few points, I haven't studied all the early editions of the temple ceremony to state exactly what they went through. The purpose of my original post some time ago was in reaction to some comments I had seen on this board and elsewhere.

The attitude of wait a minute, I thought the endowment was received by revelation from God, now all of a sudden there are some changes. Does this mean God got it wrong before and just now got it right?

The endowment is still the same. The Law of Sacrifice, law of Chastity, Consecration, obedience, etc. Just because we no longer talk of a death penalty ( the death penalties were symbolic, not literal and were part of the ceremony to impress upon our minds the sacredness of not revealing this outside the temple) If you thought you were actually taking an oath to give up your life if you revealed these things then you did not understand the endowment.

So the wording was changed in the Law of Chastity from no sexual intercourse to no sexual relations. I'm sure this change came about because somebody thought they found a loophole to cheat without any consequences. The bottom line is, the change was for clarification, not a change in what is being taught.

"The Prophet Joseph Smith taught, "Ordinances instituted in the heavens before the foundation of the world, in the priesthood, for the salvation of men, are not to be altered or changed.""

These include the Law of Chastity, Sacrifice, Consecration, Obedience etc. Just because a word or two is changed for clarification does not mean we have altered the endowment. Just because there is no longer a symbolic reference to giving up your life rather than divulge information does not mean you are still under sacred obligation to not talk of these things. And different generations have their own particular challenges that might include instruction or councel that another generation does not get.

In a nutshell, early church members received their endowment and agreed to the same obligations we do today with regards to obedience, sacrifice etc. The original endowmment was about 8 hrs so the process was different but the outcome is the same.

Subject: TBME's own words: "I may be wrong on a few points, I haven't studied all the early editions of the temple ceremony to state exactly what they went through."
Date: Feb 24 12:48
Author: steve benson

TBME's down for the count.

The winner and still champion: Deconstructor--and the facts.

Subject: Korihor is a fictional character compared to Deconstructor
Date: Feb 24 12:50
Author: Asimov

That's why Korihor's skepticism turned out to be a caricature of "the evil atheist" who just repeats what the devil tells him, whereas Deconstructor's skepticism is actually based on what skeptics prize: verifiable objective facts.

Ironically, Korihor's epistemology turns out to be just like yours, only better: he is contacted by a supernatural being who tells him what to say, but his supernatural being is an actual visitation rather than just an emotional response.

Subject: did you say 'Korrihor'??? GODWIN's LAW! GODWIN's LAW!
Date: Feb 24 13:08
Author: Langdon

comparing someone to Korrihor is the Mormon contextual equivalent to saying "that is just the kind of thing Hitler would say!"

And that means the debate is over, the invoker of Korrihor/Hitler has automatically lost.

Subject: Ooooooooohh...I get it...you didn't actually mean ordinances when you said ordinances...
Date: Feb 24 14:24
Author: anon

...what you meant to say that the VAGUE CONCEPTS of religious principles were always taught in the temple. Wait. Hold on. I may be wrong here. Lessee......you just stated, "LAW of Chastity, Sacrifice, Consecration, Obedience etc". Ok. You're not really talking about OATHS, are you? Because the Oaths of the Laws of Chastity, Sacrifice, Consecration, Obedience have indeed changed. What you're trying to get at are CONCEPTS, no? The concepts in the temple of trying to get people to be more moral and loyal to your god haven't changed? But wait. If the oaths change then aren't you changing the concept of the concept? Damn it. Would you be kind enough to explicitly state what has not changed in the temple...period? And I'm talking about a line item listing of what hasn't changed, because I think pretty much the whole thing in one shape, form, ordinance, or otherwise has undergone a change.



Subject: How can anyone with a straight face say the covenants did not change when it is obvious
Date: Feb 24 13:01
Author: SusieQ#1

the content, and execution changed? Amazing.

They still have temples so even if they change the thing, it is not changed because the temples are still there. What kind of logic is that? The kind that keeps the TBM paying tithing to pay for it!

The typical Mormon is sure someone got it wrong and it was not them. They, at least, have the proper spirit and anyone else not understanding it the way they do, is obviously under the imaginary control of some evil force!

And, even if the "facts" show him/her in error, they can always resort to imaginary characters to back up their points.

Nothing is so sacred it cannot be discussed freely, that is what puts the Mormon Church on the bottom of the list for "full disclosure."

The Mormon Church relies on the loop hole of "Modern Day Revelation" to cover their policy change!

They can change anything, disavow it, then say it was because Heavenly Father only gave the members what they could understand in the old "milk before meat" ploy.

I wonder how long it will take TBME to figure it out and release himself from the mental gymnastics.

He is not fooling anyone here.

Subject: EXACTLY!! Mental gymnastics HAS to be part of a tbm's way of thinking.

Subject: Re: Temples, Lies and Changes - here's the proof
Date: Feb 24 12:59
Author: Wil


Her is something that bothered me for quite a while when I was a TBM. Back in the 80's I was a veil worker at one of the temples in the Western US. Now, we all have probably read the quotes referring to the temple ceremony being necessary for learning all the signs and tokens to get past the angels, so I won't go into that here. Now, if we (and I did, once upon a time) believe that this is true (a prophet said it, right?), then no matter the language the ceremony is performed in, all the signs & tokens, etc should be there, correct?

Well, being multi-lingual I was often asked to work the veil for certain non-English speaking patrons. Special cards are available in the foreign languages to make sure it is word perfect. The only problem is that for one esoteric language, parts of the veil ceremony were missing. Now, wouldn't this mean that all those people who spoke this language would be missing these parts making it a little difficult to pass by the Angels?

I informed the Temple presidency and I believe it was fixed but am not sure as shortly there-after I stopped going to the temple. I wish I had kept exact notes as to what was missing but didn't think to.

Subject: Here's a tid bit....
Date: Feb 24 13:28
Author: 2 of 6

Royden Derrick, a Mormon Seventy, wrote, "Temple ordinances instituted in the heavens before the foundation of the world are for the salvation and exaltation of God's children. It is important that the saving ordinances not be altered or changed, because all of those who will be exalted, from the first man, Adam, to the last, must be saved on the same principles" (Temples in the Last Days, 1987, pg. 36)

Subject: Re: Temples, Lies and Changes - here's the proof
Date: Feb 24 15:25
Author: Punny_guy

Perhaps you need to show your Visa before entering heaven so they know what language for the angels to speak to you in. As if God is not in control and we need angles to ratify us. All the non-members can remember the keywords from the websites out there and get into heaven as well! If you say 'no' you could not get into the celestial kingdom by reciting the temple ordinances if you were a non member, then you must somehow assume the angles would know you were not a for real Mormon who learned it from the temple. If they could know that, then why do you have to give them the keywords and signs at all? Don't they know WHO we are? Kinda silly when you think about it for awhile. God the all knowing needs us to tell angels keywords to get into his kingdom.

Subject: And lets not forget the 5 points of fellowship.
Date: Feb 24 13:55
Author: Moablo

Does TBM eavesdropper expect us to believe that removing a ritual is not changing? Who does this guy think he's kidding?

Subject: Re: And lets not forget the 5 points of fellowship.
Date: Feb 24 14:02
Author: Theocean

Right when you mentioned that, I remembered how uncomfortable the position made me feel, the bad breath the veil worker always had, and how hard I tried to memorize the name (good grief, it seemed so long!).
Go help me, I've TRIED to forget the 5 points of fellowship!

Subject: Don't forget about temple adoptions, those have been done away with. . .
Date: Feb 24 14:07
Author: Ether

My G-G-G-Grandfather, Issac Morley, who's mentioned in the D&C, was adopted to Brigham Young. Heber C Kimball officiated the ceremony. Here's the screwy part, his daughter, Cordelia Morley Cox, was sealed to Joseph Smith. Soooooo, I've always wondered how the church can explain who ends up in which family in the hereafter.

Subject: Let's say I had ten pennies in my hand....
Date: Feb 24 14:25
Author: StationaryTraveler

and I took away any number of them, doesn't that change things just a tad?

TBME, remember when the infamous "Blood Atonement" was also practiced by the brethren? It wasn't too uncommon in the earlier days to find bodies laying out in the desert with their throats slashed from ear to ear. Oh wait, it must have been those damned Indians.

If you read some of the sermons from Brigham you will have to concede that it indeed existed. According to those fanatics it was considered to be the Lord's way. Hmm, that seems to have changed also.


Subject: Let's remember where the original ideas came from
Date: Feb 24 15:13
Author: Punny_guy

Lets not forget unless someone already mentioned it that Joseph Smith came up with the temple endowment 3 months after becoming a Grand Master Mason. Interesting how almost word for word the temple coventnants echo the Masonic temple rites. Can you say plagiarism? Then some TBM's will try and say the Masons spied them from the temple back at the time of Christ. This is so bogus since the Masons did not come into existence until the 1300's or later. Order de Sion was the first brotherhood with rites and they are said to be the foreruners of the Knights of Templar and perhaps the Masons from the Knights of Templar. Order De Sion did not start until after 1000 A.D. So the Mormon theory holds no water at all. So were the Masons just inspired from God as well or did Joseph just steal it? Well when you look at so many other plagiarisms in the church such as the Book of Mormon you begin to get the picture.


Subject: TBM Eavesdropper, Korihor and MORE!
Date: Feb 24 17:24
Author: Deconstructor

And now, Part Three:

TBM Eavesdropper said: Korihor is an amateur compared to Deconstructor. Korihor had a very convincing way with men and was able to lead many astray. I can't imagine he was as good as Decon.

I respond:

Comparing me to Satan's disciple now? Go back and read your Book of Mormon stories and see what really happened with Korihor. If you really think there's a real comparison then you're sicker than I thought.

TBME: Anyway, I may be wrong on a few points, I haven't studied all the early editions of the temple ceremony to state exactly what they went through.

Studying wouldn't do you any good anyway because you obviously refuse to accept anything that challenges your feeble testimony.

TBME: The purpose of my original post some time ago was in reaction to some comments I had seen on this board and elsewhere.

Let's be very clear here. This is exactly what you originally said:

"The Endowment has never changed. It is the same one we had 15 years ago, 50 years ago and 150 years ago. Granted, there have been changes in the way the endowment is presented but the endowment is the same. For example, at different points during the endowment, effort is made to impress upon our minds the truths we are being taught. Changes have been made over the years in the way these principles are communicated, but nothing has changed regarding the reason we go to the temple and what is accomplished there."

When you throw out silly testimonies like this, expect people here to call you on it.

TBME: The attitude of wait a minute, I thought the endowment was received by revelation from God, now all of a sudden there are some changes. Does this mean God got it wrong before and just now got it right?

This is a very fair question to ask about temple covenants and ordinances, especially considering that Joseph Smith declared they were created "from the foundation of the world" and "can never change."

Did Joseph Smith lie or are you wrong?

TBME: The endowment is still the same. The Law of Sacrifice, law of Chastity, Consecration, obedience, etc.

That's bullshit and you know it. I showed you right from the endowment itself that the chastity covenant has changed. It didn't use to include homosexuality. It didn't include oral sex. It used to be limited to sexual intercourse between a man and his wives that were sealed in the temple.

You are on the road to apostasy if you find these changes trivial. If the words to these unchangeable ordinances can be changed, then why do Priests have to re-do the sacrament ordinance if they change ONE WORD? Why does the baptism ordinance have to be redone if it's not done exactly as Joseph Smith revealed it?

TBME: Just because we no longer talk of a death penalty ( the death penalties were symbolic, not literal and were part of the ceremony to impress upon our minds the sacredness of not revealing this outside the temple) If you thought you were actually taking an oath to give up your life if you revealed these things then you did not understand the endowment.

You obviously haven't paid attention to the endowment. Those death oaths - symbolic or not - were PART OF THE COVENANT. That's what matters, that people were making a covenant before God, Angels and the temple witnesses and that covenant has changed. For example, my mother had to covenant to God that she would have her throat slit. Symbolic or not, she had to make that covenant to receive her endowment. I didn't have to make that covenant when I received my endowment. Therefore, the endowment covenants have changed!

TBME: So the wording was changed in the Law of Chastity from no sexual intercourse to no sexual relations. I'm sure this change came about because somebody thought they found a loophole to cheat without any consequences. The bottom line is, the change was for clarification, not a change in what is being taught.

You're backpeddaling here. Your repeated testimony (which is what is at question here) is that the endowment never changed. Now you're admitting it changed but making up excuses for why. The point is, it changed.

As for why it changed, that is a different matter. If you really think it was because someone "found a loophole" then you're basically denying that God created these laws and covenants "from the foundation of the world." According to Joseph Smith, the temple endowment was created at the time of Adam and Eve. Now you seriously believe it was only in the 1980's that someone found a loophole in the law of chastity, so it had to be changed? Wake up man!

The repeated changes in the chastity covenant alone demonstrates that the endowment is not of eternal or divine origin.

TBME: Just because a word or two is changed for clarification does not mean we have altered the endowment.

Think again. Try telling Priests who get one word wrong during the sacrament blessing or baptism ordinance that one word doesn't make a difference. If the words didn't matter, then why is the church so anal to make sure they aren't altered?

TBME: Just because there is no longer a symbolic reference to giving up your life rather than divulge information does not mean you are still under sacred obligation to not talk of these things.

Wrong again. We aren't talking about "references" here. We're talking about unchangeable, eternal covenants. The fact is, my mother made a covenant to slit her throat in order to gain her saving ordinance. Some thirty years later I didn't have to make that covenant. That's a big change!

TBME: And different generations have their own particular challenges that might include instruction or councel that another generation does not get.

We're not talking counsel here. We're talking about eternal, unchangeable covenants. Have the baptismal covenants ever changed in the church? Of course not. Joseph Smith said they couldn't and he said the same of the temple ordiances and covenants.

TBME: In a nutshell, early church members received their endowment and agreed to the same obligations we do today with regards to obedience, sacrifice etc.

You are terribly ignorant of your own church's history. Read my post again and notice how drastically different the initiatory ordinance for my great-great-grandmother was from the one my own mother received. Different promises. Different blessings. Different obligations.

TBME: The original endowmment was about 8 hrs so the process was different but the outcome is the same.

How do you know the outcome is the same? If an Elder performs an ordinance incorrectly, does it have the same outcome?

Besides, wouldn't the "outcome" of the endowment be different today if the covenant to avenge the death of Joseph Smith was still required of all temple patrons? The on-going changes to the endowment DO make a difference, or the church wouldn't keep making them. Even more embarassing is the fact that the last round of changes to the temple covenants and ordinances came from a marketing survey and not divine revelation. See: http://www.lds-mormon.com/whytemplechanges.shtml

In a nutshell, the temple endowment has changed, which not only contradicts what the Prophet Joseph Smith revealed, but also dethrones the endowment of its alleged eternal, divine origin.

By the way, Randy Jordan still deserves a reply from you:
http://www.exmormon.org/boards/w-agora/view.php?bn=exmobb_recovery&key=1077628665



Subject: Gawd, how I hate this rationale.
Date: Feb 25 13:52
Author: Moablo

TBME is lying and he knows he's lying. This is the single biggest thing I detest about the LDS cult. Church leaders and prophets lie about things and get their TBM members to lie too. And the whole time they're lying, they try to convince you they aren't.

Remember GBH telling Larry King he didn't "know that we teach that" when talking about becoming gods? That was a lie! And he confirmed it by getting up in the next general conference and telling the congregation not to be concerned about what they may have heard him say in a recent interview; that he "knows our doctrine quite well."

For Christ's sake, Mormons, have a little integrity!

Subject: Gee Deconstructor.......
Date: Feb 25 01:36
Author: tom

after you are done tenderizing him do I get a turn?

I would like to see him try and talk his way out of my research at www.post-mormons.com/tories.htm.

That is if you are willing to share the fun.

Subject: The real genius/subtlety/subterfuge...
Date: Feb 27 00:15
Author: Antimendacity

...of the Church prevaricators in defending the faith is using confident "we alredy knew this" responses to attacks on the historical documents.

It causes TBMs to say...well...at least they're not flustered by this disclosure...everything must be fine...whew...I'm okay...I'm okay...calm down...

And we end up listening to their muppets prevaricate using the same crap their leaders use.

Subject: Warning TBME, it's a trap.
Date: Feb 27 17:19
Author: activejackmormon

Go and never come back. Your faith is in danger because the facts are not on your side. Trying to argue facts will only cause you heartache because there are no bullets in your gun. This is a draw you cannot win.

Deconstructor keeps calling you on and anihilating you and you keep coming back for more faith deflating treatment. Unless you are ready to become an ex-mo, this place is not the place for you to go.

And I say these things in the name of Kinderhood Plates, Amen.

The Mormon Temple endowment never has changed - yeah right....


Recovery from Mormonism - The Mormon Church  www.exmormon.org

Listing of additional short Topics  |  Main Page